Quote:
Originally Posted by The Goat
WTH are "youtube" skills... sort of sounds like computer hacking and nunchuck skills LOL.
Anyway, tell me this about the plight of Thomas/Hixon. Who in the franchise is primarily charged w/ the task of making sure these guys 1) take the off-season serious, even as rooks 2) learn the playbook 3) learn to run crisp routes as the NFL requires. From the standpoint of basic common sense I have to believe a billion dollar franchise is going to assign someone the task. I'm totally, completely willing to admit my ignorance of franchise structure but it seemed common sense that the position coach, Hixon, would be charged w/ this task.
Last, am I factually wrong in saying Hixon has never developed an NFL receiver? I'm tempted to go a bit further and state he's never even improved one, as i believe guys like Moss, Caldwell, McCardell, and Thrash had just as much success prior to working w/ Hixon. (ARL i leave out because he wasn't a starting receiver for Pitt so it seems a lousy comparison) My bottom line is i don't for the life of me see what there is to defend about this guy... he's done literally nothing.
|
I think your opinion that Hixon is not a good receivers coach and that we shouldn't have retained him is fine. I'm not defending Hixon per se. I don't necessarily agree either, but the opinion that we could do better seems legit.
The obvious answer to the question you've posed here is: Thomas and Kelly. Duh. I think Hixon's part of the equation, but your position only makes sense if Hixon is the ENTIRE equation, in which case, why draft at all?
I mentioned before, I don't think this is ignorance on your part, I think it's simply confusing correlation (Hixon) with casuation (who knows?).
Why does one person HAVE to be responsible for the lack of development with the receivers? Why is each individual not held accountable for his development in your eyes? What is the reasoning behind assuming that only Hixon is responsible?